Sue, Grabbit and Run II - Confusion Abounds

The furore over PC Kelly Jones's claim for compensation after tripping over a kerb shows no sign of abating, and has brought about a confused and muddled response from the police force itself.

Stephen Bett, the Norfolk police and crime commissioner, has called on Jones to withdraw her compensation claim.

As per the BBC:

"In my mind, that would be the right thing to do and, judging from what people have been telling me, what the public would want to see.

Police officers, like other members of the emergency services, accept that when they join up they may have to put themselves in danger in order to do their job.

It is appalling to think that rather than putting the public first, there are some who see the possibilities of taking their own legal action to benefit financially."

Norfolk's chief constable Phil Gormley said he was "disappointed personally and professionally" by the claim:

"Policing is a contact sport, as is life on occasions. You can't eliminate all risk.

I'm not saying be cavalier but one of the things when I was a lot younger that attracted me to the police service was that level of excitement and, on occasions, risk.

You only have to sit in an accident and emergency department and all around you in many places there are encouragements to sue people.

It breeds defensive organisations and it generates a lot of bureaucracy."

However, Steve Williams, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, which is backing the claim, said PC Jones should not be vilified.

As per the Norwich Evening News:

“Both the public and police officers have expressed concern that this type of case has been taken forward. However, it is important that the public understand that police officers are not financially compensated by their own force for injuries received on duty and, in fact, can lose money through half pay and reduction in allowances.

Let me be clear – to vilify this female officer is wrong.

She took legal advice as to how she could claim back some of her lost earnings as a result of the injury, and at this stage no formal proceedings have taken place.

In my view it is actually we [the federation] that should be looking at our processes and structures in terms of how we provide advice.

She is our member and I feel that our organisation has failed to prepare her for the wider personal impact that might arise from such a claim.

The police federation’s structure is being independently reviewed and no doubt how we continue to provide advice in the round for our members will be examined as a result of this unusual case. 

While PC Jones may be an easy target as she is one individual within a media storm, for me it is the police federation that needs to be mindful of the widespread public and member perception that has arisen out of this claim, and address that where relevant in our advice going forward.”

That is all very well, but what did they expect would happen when a police officer sues a member of the public who is not a criminal?

David Abbott, a retired police officer from Hadleigh, is quoted by EADT24:

“I have been retired for eight years now but during my 30 years in the force, working in places such as Ipswich and Hadleigh, I was assaulted by people, bitten, scratched and kicked by wild and domestic animals, and I tripped on a dark railway line. 

I fell into an HGV inspection pit in pitch dark, broke an ankle climbing over high gates while pursuing a suspect, and I was even shot at with a firearm. 

We didn’t even have stab-proof vests in those days, but everything was in the line of duty and not once did it ever occur to me that I could claim against anyone.

This should never had been pursued in the first place as no permanent damage was done (to Pc Jones). In my opinion, the whole thing is ludicrous. If tripping up a kerb is worst that you encounter as a police officer, then you are very lucky.”

Quite so!


Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Sue, Grabbit and Run

As loyal readers know, the Nanny state has spawned an entire industry dedicated to helping people sue other people/organisations for what we once used to describe as "accidents".

Now, seemingly, nothing is an "accident" but is instead "someone else's fault" out of which we can make a tidy little sum.

Step forward PC Kelly Jones who injured her leg and wrist at the filling station in Thetford, Norfolk, on 25 August last year when she was on duty.

The BBC reports that a letter to the business from solicitor Pattinson Brewer states PC Jones went to the Nunns Bridges garage at 00:20 BST.

It said she went towards a gap in the fencing near a jet wash area in order to access the rear of the premises.

She did not know there was a section of high kerbing and tripped and fell.

PC Jones injured her left leg and right wrist and went to the West Suffolk Hospital. The claim alleges the petrol station was at fault for failing to ensure PC Jones was "reasonably safe", making no attempt to light the area or warn her about the step.

A force spokesman is quoted by the Liverpool Echo:

"This legal action is not supported by the Constabulary, our understanding being that the action is funded and supported by the Police Federation, a position over which the Constabulary has no control."

This will make people think twice about calling on the police for help.

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

The Dangers of Ladders - How To Earn Money

I often write many a caustic word or two about the uselessness of our local councils, and how that are apt to come up with all manner of rules and regulations to stop us living our lives.

However, this story about a school caretaker suing his council rather neatly illustrates that some of us are the creators of our own prison and hell on earth.

Anthony Gower-Smith, school caretaker at Awbridge Primary School in Hampshire, fell off a 6ft stepladder in January 2004 whilst removing some display cards in the school hall. At over 70 he has been unable to work since, and had suffered skull fractures and an injury to his right kidney.

He merrily ran (or shuffled I assume) to his employer, Hampshire County Council, and claimed that they had not shown him how to use the ladder safely and that it was not suitable equipment for him to use.

Needless to say, this being the Nanny state, he ended up in court suing the council and recently won his case. The London High Court ruled that his employer, Hampshire County Council, was 75% to blame for the accident.

He had sued the authority for up to £50,000, but the amount of the award will be assessed at a later date.

The council said Mr Gower-Smith "knew perfectly well how to use a stepladder", and had been given a detailed manual on all aspects of his job.

Therefore, given people's stupidity and greed, it is not altogether surprising that councils have to try at times to protect themselves (and our council tax) from ambulance chasers etc.

We are building our own prison and shackles, brick by brick, link by link!

Self responsibility and taking the blame for our own actions have been eroded from our mindset by the Nanny state, it will take a long time to instill these virtues in our society again.

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

The Law is An Arse

Can any please tell me how, in any right minded society, this absurd claim should be allowed to go anywhere near a sensible court?

Graham Hall, a convicted murderer who sexually assaulted his 76 year old victim as she lay dying after receiving over 50 stab wounds, is demanding £50K in compensation because he has had to "slop out" his prison toilet as a result of a breakdown in the plumbing.

In this odious little man's view, this experience is a breach of his human rights.

Hall has been given permission by a judge to sue The Ministry of Justice, and is thought to be receiving legal aid.

A Ministry of Justice source said:

"His case is a test case,

and if successful,

it will allow 40 other prisoners to make similar claims.

All prisoners have toilets which work properly

and there is no slopping out.

But if the night sanitation system fails,

they cannot be let out of their cells

because some of them are too dangerous.

When a toilet breaks down in a home in the UK,

people will use a bucket of water to slop out

until they can get it fixed.

They don't sue."

When people lose all respect for the law, society breaks down.

Those who the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

We must be truly mad!

ASBOS 'R Us

In Nanny's world councils have been given, or shall we say believe that they have been given, a hell of a lot of power over us.

Now, as we all know, power can corrupt; it would seem that one of Nanny's "respected" local councils has found that to its cost.

Manchester City Council has recently been admonished by the Local Government Ombudsman for an "abuse of power of nightmarish proportions", having given a woman an Anti Social Behaviour order (Asbo) based on false allegations made against her. As such, the council will pay £2K in compensation to the woman.

Council officers were called in, in June 2004, when a woman known as Miss A complained she was being subjected to anti-social behaviour by her neighbour, Mrs X.

Miss A claimed that as a result of the behaviour, which she alleged included threats of violence, intimidation, verbal abuse and playing music too loudly, she had become ill.

However, the report revealed there were no attempts to corroborate the claims with either neighbours or the police.

Mrs X was only made aware of the allegations when she was served court papers for a hearing in December 2004, which led to an interim Asbo being granted.

She contested the decision and more than 20 letters were written in her defence, leading to the Asbo being withdrawn, in court, three months later.

Ombudsman Jerry White said:

"It is extraordinary that the allegations

were never put to Mrs X before the council

sought an Asbo against her, at first behind

her back and then by serving papers on her

just days before a court hearing.

It is extraordinary too that it never

sought corroboratory evidence from third parties.

This was an abuse of nightmarish proportions."

The council was found guilty of maladministration, and told it should review the way in which cases like these are handled.

Deborah McLaughlin, council director of housing, said:

"We have learnt lessons from the way we dealt

with Mrs X in 2004.

In 2005 we fully reviewed our procedures."

Then she went on to more or less claim that they did everything by the book, which kind of undermines her apology:

"we should also point out that our initial

application for an anti-social order was

confirmed by the court in the face of

convincing evidence and was not something

carried out in isolation by our officers."

Seems to me that she is disputing the Ombudsman's ruling.

That's the trouble with acting as judge, jury and executioner; it just leads to trouble in the end.

Dig For Victory

Britain is a tiny island, with a very large/excessive population (people per square mile) of around 60 million.

Feeding this population requires a well developed set of trade routes with the rest of the world, and the maximisation of agricultural output on British soil.

When crisis hits, such as in the last war (when our population was only 40 million), we have serious trouble feeding ourselves. During these times of crisis every available piece of land is turned over to producing food. Thus it was that allotments, a modest piece of land allocated to local town dwellers for vegetable and flower growing, really came into their own.

Dig For Victory!

Needless to say Nanny, because she is into organic "cafe latte" couscous ethically sourced at twice the price type shit, doesn't give a stuff about the humble allotment with its spuds and caulis.

Therefore local councils, such as the Parish Council of West Monkton Somerset, are free to "bugger up" yet another aspect of British life.

The council has demanded that local allotment holders take out millions of pounds of public liability insurance, thus forcing them to abandon their allotments.

The hapless allotment holders in West Monkton have been told to pay for protection in case someone trips over a turnip, or slips on a slug, and sues for compensation.

West Monkton is not alone in demanding money with menaces, other local authorities have been advised to follow suit.

The cost to local allotment holders, who rent their plots at £10 per annum, is an additional £400 per annum!

Geoff Stokes, of the National Society of Allotments and Leisure Gardens, thinks that the demand for money with menaces is a load of old bollocks:

"It's ridiculous.

It makes it not worth having an allotment.

The average plot holder can produce about £500 worth of food.

If they have to pay up to £400 in insurance,

plus the £50 cost of seeds and tools on top

there is no point in having an allotment.

A lot of people, particularly the retired

or those on low incomes, could not afford to pay

the extra cost of insurance.

A lot people would just give up.

It could mean the end of the Great British allotment.

We are at a time when demand for allotments is

at its highest since the Second World War."

Britain has an estimated 330,000 allotments which, if each charged £400, would rake in £132M per annum for the money grabbing councils/insurance companies.

As David Hampsey, of the National Vegetable Society, rightly observes:

"It's ridiculous to ask plot holders

to pay up to £400 in insurance.

It's just another way of making money

out of law-abiding citizens."

He has hit the nail on the head, it's another piss take from our ineffective and redundant local councils; who are using it as an excuse to raise more money so that they can afford to pay for their salaries, expense accounts and defined benefit pension funds.

The crisis came to a head the other week when 11 plot holders in West Monkton received letters telling them they must insure themselves against personal injury claims of up to £5M. The parish council clerk, Trish Cavill, said that the town hall was following advice from their insurer Allianz Cornhill.

The letter said each allotment owner must have public liability insurance "with a limited indemnity of no less than five million pounds."

Grower David Almond, allotment holder aged 70, said:

"This is utter nonsense.

The purpose of allotments was to

help poor families grow vegetables.

But it looks like the council wants

to push people out of them."

Needless to say West Monkton Parish Council are quick to blame the compensation culture for the need to insure allotments.

Mrs Cavill said:

"We live in a health and safety conscious age,

and we wanted to clarify the position for allotments.

The parish council's insurance covers the public walkways

and paths on the site but not the allotments themselves.

If someone trips on a bucket on a path,

the council is liable.

But if they trip over a bucket on an allotment,

the allotment holder is liable."

Errmmm...if I have read that correctly she has just said that it is the allotment holder that is liable?

Therefore is it not up to the allotment holder as to whether they take out £5M insurance cover?

Why does the council need to get itself involved in this?

Why does the council seem to think that it is responsible for everything that happens? (answer: because if people stopped to ask what does a local council really need to do, they would see that their council needs to do far less than it claims. We are being conned by our local councils into paying for services we don't want or need).

Reading her response it is clear that this has nothing to do with the council.

Allianz said that the company would advise all councils to urge allotment plot holders to have public liability insurance.

Well of course they would, they stand to earn £132M a year out of it!

Does not anyone in our "respected" local councils ever bother to challenge these money grabbing insurance companies?

Why does the cover need to be £5M? This amount is quoted now for all events and issues connected with local councils.

Why not £1M or £500K?

How accurate are the premiums of £400, taking into account the risks and likelihood of a £5M payout?

An Allianz spokesperson said:

"This type of cover is needed in case

someone gets injured at the allotment

and wants to sue the plot holder."

I refer her to my point above, about it being up to the allotment holder not the council or insurance company to dictate terms.

Seriously, does anyone really trust their council or insurance companies?

It is high time that people stood up to these parasites.

DIG FOR VICTORY!

Monkey See, Monkey Do

Nanny believes in the principle of leadership by example; in other words she seeks to teach her charges, via example, how they should lead their lives.

One of Nanny's chums in the Lords, Baroness Corston, is leading by example. When she was a lowly commoner and MP she twisted her ankle, or something similar, in the Houses of Parliament in 2003. Now she is claiming an enhanced sickness pension worth up to £24K a year.

However, before there is an out pouring of sorrow and grief for this poor lady, let us not forget that weeks after the 2005 election she was given a peerage and last year claimed £26K in attendance allowances and expenses.

One parliamentary source said:

"Several MPs have been given a higher pension

by saying they cannot carry on as MPs,

only to wash up in another job or the Lords."

Baroness Corston, who used to be a barrister (what is it about this current Labour government that attracts lawyers?), was the first female chairman of the backbench Parliamentary Labour Party group, and was the MP for Bristol East from 1992 until the last Election.

She has attended the Lords on 61 days last year and claimed £26,190 in allowances, made up of £16,890 in daily and overnight allowances and £9,300 in travel and office costs.

Value for money indeed!

The next time you lash out at the person in the street who claims compensation from a local council for tripping up, remember they are taking their cue from our "beloved" leaders.

Nanny Bans Bunny Hop

Easter is a coming in, and as ever with Nanny and her minions we can expect the usual banning of chocolate, hot cross buns and the religious symbolism associated with Easter.

However, rather to my surprise, Nanny has also banned bunnys...or rather she has banned the bunny hop.

The town of Llangollen holds an annual Easter Bunny Hop, which raises funds for Oswestry's Hope House. The April event consists of a large group of men, women and children, dressed as rabbits, hopping along the main streets of the town. It has been running for the last three years, and attracts hundreds of visitors.

Unfortunatley Llangollen Enterprise, which organises the hop, have been spooked by Nanny and the compensation culture that she has encouraged; they have decided to ban it this year.

Why?

There is a risk that someone will fall and then sue.

Sad that whenever the word "risk" is mentioned, Nanny immediately bans something.

Nanny has not learnt that risk is omnipresent in our lives, it is down to us to manage it sensibly...not down to her to ban us from living our lives as we would wish to.

Judith Dodd, chairman of the Llangollen Enterprise said:

"The Llangollen Bunny Hop was created to bring

something a little different to the town

just before the Easter holidays and was

thoroughly enjoyed by both competitors and spectators alike.

We've really had to take this decision

because of the litigious nature that has been

seeping into our society from the States over the past few years.

Although Oak Street is extremely well maintained

by Denbighshire County Council, a hop, skip and a stumble

could simply be more trouble than it's worth."

She added:

"The insurance policy was very expensive

in relation to the overall costs of the Bunny Hop

last year and this cost has risen sharply.

This would take away from what we would want to do

with the event but it's the potential hassle,

rather than the sheer cost,

which has seen us reach this unfortunate decision."

Nanny is destroying the fabric of our society, by preventing us from living our lives to the full.

Nanny's Cold Turkey

Nanny really does care about her "charges" and their human rights. In fact she cares about them so much, that even criminal drug addicts are set to receive a special payment to compensate them for the fact that they can't access the drugs of their choice when in jail.

Yes, you did read that correctly!

It seems that around 200 drug-addicted convicts will receive a compensation payout of almost £700K, after Nanny gave in to claims that stopping their use of drugs breached their human rights.

It seems that if the claims brought by the inmate junkies had reached court, the inmates could have been granted even more compensation.

The 198 prisoners were receiving treatment to help them kick hard drug addictions.

They had been receiving drugs such as methadone, paid for by Nanny (oops, I mean paid for by us). However, the policy was changed and the most effective treatment was deemed to be a slice of "cold turkey" - as it were.

How appropriate at this time of year!.

The junkies, using legal aid, argued that this was unlawful under Nanny's Human Rights Act and should count as "torture" or "degrading treatment".

Given that it was not Nanny who made them take drugs in the first place, I find that argument to be somewhat tenuous.

They went on to argue that the prison system had no right to make them stop, or to put them through detox programmes without their consent.

The average payment will be around £3.5K each.

Norman Brennan of the Victims of Crime Trust said:

"This case loses sight of the fact that taking drugs is illegal,

and these prisoners took drugs of their own accord

and broke the law to fund their habits.

The Human Rights Convention was set up

after the war in response to Nazi atrocities.

It is disgraceful that 60 years later

the Human Rights Act is benefiting offenders bringing such frivolous claims."

There are two ironies in this story:

• Prisons are awash with illicit narcotics anyway, so these guys will readily have access to the drugs of their choice.



• Honest, non drug addicted people, are being denied life saving drugs by Nanny's NHS in order to save money.

Funny old world, isn't it?

Another Prat

It seems that this is the week for prats revealing themselves unto the world.

Below is a verbatim extract and link from The Telegraph, a rare event indeed!

I look forward to the day when the Nordic nations offer to pay me compensation for the damage that their ancestors did to my ancestors (rape, pillage, slavery, economic damage etc) during the Viking invasions, and when the Italians pay me compensation for the slaves that the Roman Empire made of my ancestors.

That will happen, right?

Ah wait a minute, I think I left out the phrase "When hell freezes over".

I need say nothing more, as I think it says it all!

Esther Stanford, the secretary of Rendezvous of Victory, an African-led pressure group that is demanding compensation.

A lawyer and vice-chairman of a linked organisation, the Pan African Reparation Coalition, she said Mr Blair's statement of regret fell far short of the hopes of many descendents of slaves.

"They are empty words, empty gestures," she said. "If he wants to do something that will restore his credibility he needs to set up a national commission to examine the legacy of the holocaust of slavery on the lives of people today.

"Reparation means to repair the harm. We need to have a full assessment made of the injuries done to us. We are talking about educational repairs, economic repairs, family repairs, cultural repairs, repairs of every kind that we need to sustain ourselves. It will cost.

"This nation has benefited extremely in financial and other terms in relation to African enslavement and colonisation, so it is right to hold this Government responsible."

Slaves

Nanny has something of a problem with history, specifically British history. She believes that it needs to be sanitised and controlled, in much the same way that she tries to control the media today.

As such she always looks out for opportunities to try to "rubbish" the past, with the intent of trying to make her "brave new world" look more acceptable.

Her chums in English Heritage have been recently doing their bit to expunge history, they are working on a project to highlight the links between landmark buildings and slavery.

Researchers will scour the history of stately homes and other sites looking for connections to the slave trade, which was banned in Britain 200 years ago next year.

FYI, Britain was the first country in the world to ban the slave trade. Oddly enough, it still continues in some parts of Africa and has experienced something of a modern renaissance in the spawning of the sex slave industry in Eastern Europe and the Far East.

However, we must never allow facts to get in the way of one of Nanny's "bright ideas".

One of the English Heritage's commissioners, Maria Adebowale, claimed that the project would help people recognise how much of Britain's historical wealth was built on "human misery".

Maybe so, but then again most other countries have had their wealth built on the slave trade as well, at some stage or another, viz:

• The USA needed a civil war to end it, indeed the civil rights movement was still fighting for decent treatment of black people in the 1960's



• Nazi Germany used slave workers in its factories during the last war



• Blood diamonds from Africa are mined by children and other unfortunates at the point of a gun



• Japan in the last war used sex slaves from China



• Ancient Greece used slaves



• Ancient Rome used Greek slaves etc etc

Will Nanny be providing a full and complete history of the world of slavery, so that the British part in it can be viewed in context?

Will she fuck!

In fact, some of Nanny's ministers are considering whether to issue an apology to coincide with next year's abolition bicentenary.

Opponents of such moves claim historical apologies or compensation make no sense, and point to Britain's leading role in stamping out the slave trade as well as the part played by African tribes which profited from selling slaves to foreign traders.

Many of English Heritage's sites are stoneage monuments, medieval castles or abbeys; which raises the other question as to what the fark is the point of this futile exercise?

Next up, I guess the Italians will be apologising to Greeks for their slave trade?

Plod's Discrimination

Dear old Nanny really loves to try to re-engineer society, by artificially "skewing" demographics to suit her political dogma. Unfortunately history has shown that whenever governments try to "manage" reality, and impose their view of a perfect society, things go horribly wrong.

Despite the lessons of history, Nanny still keeps trying. A recent case in point being Nanny's chums in the Gloucestershire Constabulary who rejected 108 potential recruits because they were white men.

Now Nanny's coppers have come a cropper (Ha!..come on, I'm doing my best here folks!), they have admitted positive discrimination and have been forced to pay compensation.

Gloucestershire Constabulary claimed that that it had been trying to increase diversity, by selecting only women and candidates from ethnic minorities. That is all very well, but the average citizen in Britain (be he/she black, white, green or purple) would prefer to have police officers who could do their job rather than police officers who fit an artificial racial/sexual specification.

I would also note that discrimination on the grounds of race or sex is in fact illegal.

Don't they teach the police the law then?

Needless to say Nanny's chums, when faced with an employment tribunal in Bristol, had to own up to the fact that they were in fact breaking the law.

Happy with the fact that the police admit that they have been breaking the law?

I'm not!

The tribunal was told that Matt Powell, had applied to join the force in October 2005. A month later, after being told that he had progressed to the second stage of the recruitment process, he left his job as an IT team leader at Filton College to concentrate on his application.

In January 2006 he received a letter saying that he had been "randomly deselected". He was never given an explanation for his rejection.

In April the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission started an investigation. They reported that the force had unlawfully discriminated on the grounds of race and sex.

The tribunal was told that 66% of white men, who applied to join the force last year, had been turned down. Every ethnic minority candidate who applied had been invited to an assessment centre.

Nanny has agreed to £2500 pay compensation to Mr Powell, and may now expect claims from the other 107 men, who were told by the force that they had been "randomly deselected".

Clive Tomer, chairman of the tribunal, said that Gloucestershire Constabulary had been

"at the very least disingenuous and at worst misleading".

In other words, they had lied.

Happy with the fact that the police lied?

I'm not!

Gordon Ramsey (not the chef), the head of human resources, said:

"We were trying to advance diversity in the force

and we thought at the time that this was lawful,

positive action.

When we found out after an independent investigation

by the Commission for Racial Equality that it wasn't lawful,

we accepted that."

I find that hard to believe that they didn't know that discrimination is illegal.

Do you believe them?

Overpromotion

As you know, Nanny has implemented many laws to ensure that people cannot be discriminated against and held back in their jobs as a result of race, religion, ability or sex.

These laws all work to ensure that, where the playing field is perceived by some to be uneven, it is "flattened" out.

However, even Nanny cannot think of everything; which is what Sgt Leslie Turner (the first black personal protection officer to guard the royal family) found to his cost.

You see it seems that Sgt Turner realised that he had in fact been "positively discriminated against", and "overpromoted" to the position of body guard to the Duchess of Cornwall.

Needless to say, on realising this, he sued Scotland Yard and has allegedly won around £40K in compensation for racial discrimination in an out of court settlement.

His representatives argued he had been awarded the prestigious job as Camilla's bodyguard only because he was black.

It was claimed that as a result of being over-promoted, and not receiving proper training and support, Sgt Turner made mistakes which led to him being re-assigned.

A cynic might argue that everyone makes mistakes when placed in a new job or company. Mistakes are part of the learning process.

Colleagues of Sgt Turner, said that he is a "model professional" who had a good relationship with Prince Charles and Camilla.

He began guarding Charles in August 2004, and was re-assigned to Camilla in February last year when the royal couple were engaged.

But in June 2005, it emerged he had suddenly been replaced.

Royal insiders stress that the decision to move him was not taken directly by Clarence House. However, they concede that the race row is extremely embarrassing for Charles and Camilla.

Had Sgt Turner's case reached a tribunal, potentially embarrassing secrets about Charles and Camilla's lives may have been aired.

A cynic might suggest that this is the real reason that Scotland Yard settled out of court.

Now...I am a 43 year old white, atheist, male, heterosexual, able bodied, homeowner; can anyone tell me who I may make a discrimination claim against?

Backlash

My thanks to Pete, for pointing me to the BBC on this one.

It seems that they will be screening a show this Saturday, that may be of interest to us.

Backlash
Sat 29 Oct, 6:15 pm - 6:55 pm 40mins

Compensation Culture:

Clowns who can't throw custard pies, children who can't play conkers, swimmers banned from an early morning dip. The reason? The fear of being sued.

Arthur Smith ignites the backlash against our 'compensation culture' and has a go at a phenomenon which now costs an estimated £10 billion a year. He argues that a nation once famed for it's spirit of adventure has been rendered a nation of cowering wimps.

Maybe someone would like to point them to this site, to let them know that there are indeed many of us who are fed up with the Nanny State?

Contact BBC link

Thanks.

Ken

Ken Vents His Spleen On The Nanny State

Dear all,

I have decided to vent my spleen, by way of this article, against the Nanny State.

Thank you for your indulgence.

Ken

Britain has over the past few years allowed the "claw like" grasp of the Nanny state to take hold, and to stifle individual freedom and liberty. A Nanny state exists where the state believes that it knows what is in the best interests of those who it was elected to govern, and takes it upon itself to interfere in the minutiae of their daily lives.

Britain's Nanny state, by means of legislation and media propaganda, has set about its mission to control our daily lives with a messianic zeal. It has taken upon itself the right to lecture the British public about every aspect of their daily lives on subjects including; smoking, drinking, eating, exercise and health.

Many commentators ascribe the rise of the Nanny state in the UK to the rise of the blame and compensation culture, that has crept in from the USA.

To my view, whilst this may be a symptom, it is most certainly not the cause. The blame for the rise in the Nanny state rests "Full Square" on the shoulders of the state itself, ie the government.

Nannyism affects every aspect of our daily lives. Not one of us can escape the media onslaught that the government has subjected us to over the recent years, in respect of issues as diverse as; smoking, drinking, exercise and salt/sugar intake.

Aside from this media onslaught, the dead hand of bureaucracy has been toiling to produce an avalanche of petty rules and regulations; designed to control our every action, and to restrict our freedom.

I present a few examples below of Britain’s Nanny state at its worst:

• The omnipotent Health and Safety executive ensures that every task that we undertake, even those as simple as raising a flag or climbing a ladder, cannot be performed without the requisite "jobsworth" training course being undertaken and certified.



• Councils fell trees in the fear that, if they don't, people will slip on the fruit that falls on the ground. Wyre Forest Council, in a display of Orwellian control freakery, outlawed harmless words and phrases such as "Bristol fashion" because of an ill informed study suggesting that they have connections with the slave trade.



• The government, in order to ensure that their pledge of "higher education for all" is achieved, manipulates the pass marks and the exam system so that all who take them can pass; witness the absurd media studies exam, where candidates will be given the paper one month in advance.



• John Prescott, as though he has not got enough to do as he demolishes hundreds of thousands of houses in the North so that he can build new ones in the South, has taken it upon himself to regulate the temperature of hot water in our homes; lest we scald ourselves when taking a bath. He plans to legislate for thermostatic mixing valves to be fitted in all new homes as from 2006, these valves will prevent the water temperature rising beyond a pre-determined Nanny level.



• Gloucester Local Education Authority have banned children from wearing safety goggles, as they present a drowning hazard. Seemingly the LEA believes that teachers will be distracted from the cries of drowning children, as they attempt to aid others put their goggles on.



• The University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust has banned Gideon bibles from patients’ bedsides, as they believe that they will offend non-Christians.



• School children are now restricted from taking part in field trips and off site courses, for fear of some dreadful calamity that might befall them. In my opinion, this risk aversion does the children more harm than good, the only way that children can learn and develop into mature and responsible adults is for them to be exposed to the risk of failure and danger. Life and risk is not to be feared, but to be embraced.

Nanny has gained power over us because people have become afraid of failure and of risk. Politicians, instead of managing risk, have sough to zeroise risk. This is of course an impossible goal. However, today's politicians are intellectually lazy and unprincipled. They neither have the ability, nor the will, to stand up to those who hanker after a risk free society; they baulk at telling the voters that not only is zero risk impossible, but that it is in fact dangerous.

It is only through risk taking that mankind develops; from the first tentative steps that a child takes, when it is learning to walk and to fall, to the development of revolutionary new products such as aeroplanes and IT systems. Nothing in our history has been achieved without risk and failure.

We are now faced with the third term of the Blair government. This promises to bring in yet more legislation aimed at governing the minutiae of our lives; smoking, id cards (allegedly to protect us from id theft), religious bigotry and the never-ending campaign against certain proscribed foodstuffs will all be featured in this third term.

Many say that they do not mind or care as, for example, they don’t smoke or eat fast food. That argument was used once before, and led to disaster. I would remind you of the following, which was written by a far wiser person than myself:

"First they came for the gypsies, but I did not speak up

Why should ?

I am not a gypsy.

Then they came for the communists, but I did not speak up

Why should I?

I am not a communist

Then they came for the Jews, but I did not speak up

Why should I?

I am not a Jew

Now they are coming for me

Who is there left to speak up for me?"

The Nanny state, by over regulating our lives brings both the state and the law into disrepute. Nanny’s much vaunted ASBO's are rapidly becoming a mockery. No one can take the law seriously, when ASBO's are given to farmers because of the actions of their livestock; as happened when Brian Hagan was issued with an ASBO, by Norfolk constabulary, to prevent his pigs from escaping. A society that has no respect for the law becomes ungovernable, and faces destruction from within.

The Nanny state by regulating people's lives, and by robbing them of the responsibility for their own lives, makes the population reliant on the state. Britain now has over 7 million people working in the public sector, ie they are working for the benefit of the government not for their own advancement. They are now totally dependant on the state for their livelihood, the perfect bedrock for the foundation of a dictatorship.

The opposition parties are, and have been for a number of years, paralysed. The Tory Party is selecting yet another leader, yet it has still not worked out what it actually believes in. Whilst the Liberal Party has deluded itself into thinking that it did rather well at the last election, and as such has taken an undeserved holiday. It is now down to the people of Britain to take a stand against Nanny, and to say enough is enough.

Ken Frost

Follow The Leader

In a splendid example to set the people of Britain; Gordon Jackson, not the late respected actor but Labour Member of the Scottish Parliament and QC, has decided to sue Edinburgh Council for £50K.

What was their crime, that was so great, that it prompted this bastion of public service to take them to court?

Nothing more than allowing some ice to come between Jackson’s foot and the pavement; causing the MSP to slip.

A more cynical soul might suggest that he would have been wise to look where he was going.

However, he feels differently, and is suing the council.

With this as an example, it is hardly surprising that Britain has gone compensation mad. £10BN paid out last year, and rising.

I understand that the MSP, who incidentally represents Govan not Edinburgh, earns over £250K per annum. Clearly he feels that the extra £50K will “keep the wolf from the door this winter”.